Wow 70, these are awful conspiratorial type posts devoid of any reality. You're digging a stupid hole to China man, not cool. Perhaps your hatred of him clouds your judgment?

Seems obvious you don't care much for reality, for those who do this is what went down:

1. Stewart has a past going after the media, way before anyone knew or gave a damn about Obama.
2. Stewart has gone after CNBC before Obama ran for any national level office.
3. Stewart's takedowns of CNBC started because of Rick Losers.
4. Cramer put himself out there by saying he was taken out of context by Stewart.
5. Cramer yapped again and got nailed again.
6. Finally, Stewart nailed him once more in the interview.

#3 is dead on. The takedown started after Santelli criticized Obama and after Cramer criticized Obama. If they had not engaged in patriotic dissent against His Lordship, Stewart would have continued overlooking their other sins. Stewart doesn't have time to slam all the douchebags. He only has time to slam the douchebags who speak out against "The One".

#3 is dead on. The takedown started after Santelli criticized Obama and after Cramer criticized Obama. If they had not engaged in patriotic dissent against His Lordship, Stewart would have continued overlooking their other sins. Stewart doesn't have time to slam all the douchebags. He only has time to slam the douchebags who speak out against "The One".

Actually 6 points are dead on. Let me ask you this, is Rick Santelli accountable for his comments? That is to say, can he be criticized for throwing a tantrum and calling people facing foreclosure losers?

Actually 6 points are dead on. Let me ask you this, is Rick Santelli accountable for his comments? That is to say, can he be criticized for throwing a tantrum and calling people facing foreclosure losers?

Of course he can. And Stewart may be right He would have been right if he had slammed them before they criticized Obama, too. I don't see what's so controversial about saying that the impetus for Stewart's attack was the fact that they criticized Obama. It seems obvious to me.

Of course he can. And Stewart may be right He would have been right if he had slammed them before they criticized Obama, too. I don't see what's so controversial about saying that the impetus for Stewart's attack was the fact that they criticized Obama. It seems obvious to me.

Fair enough. Personally, I think you're pissed at Stewie because he has taken one too many jabs at your beloved party, network of choice, and your hero Rushbo. Plus, I don't think making a fool out of your secret lover Jonah Goldberg helps his standing.

Fair enough. Personally, I think you're pissed at Stewie because he has taken one too many jabs at your beloved party, network of choice, and your hero Rushbo. Plus, I don't think making a fool out of your secret lover Jonah Goldberg helps his standing.

Folks, organic food is facisit.

Secret Lovers. Atlantic Starr, right? Now I'm going to have that song in my head as well their other one. "Ooh you're like the sun. Chasing all of the rain away...." 9th grade, good times.

The obsession with whole foods is just one minor example that Goldberg uses to demonstrate that the fascist movement was largely the product of a progressive sensibility- progressive in the early twentieth century sense of the word. Think Upton Sinclair and Margaret Sanger. I'm not sure it ever ocurred to anyone that Mussolini or Hitler might be rightists until Stalin decreed it to be so, for his own tactical reasons. Of course, Stalin decreed that Trotsky was a rightist as well and nobody takes that at face value. But there is no point in this. Like your boyfiend John Stewart, you haven't read the book.

And again, the link you give is to a 6 minute interview that is edited down from 18. Obviously, things didn't go the way Stewie originally expected. I think it's pretty cheap to have a debate with someone, and then cut out all the parts where the other guy lands punches. It would be like me, editing all of your posts in this thread to remove any good points you made (obviously a hypothetical). If he were just interested in laughs, I don't think he would feel the need to do things like that. If Goldberg's book were as silly as he would have us believe, he wouldn't feel the need to do things like that.

Secret Lovers. Atlantic Starr, right? Now I'm going to have that song in my head as well their other one. "Ooh you're like the sun. Chasing all of the rain away...." 9th grade, good times.

The obsession with whole foods is just one minor example that Goldberg uses to demonstrate that the fascist movement was largely the product of a progressive sensibility- progressive in the early twentieth century sense of the word. Think Upton Sinclair and Margaret Sanger. I'm not sure it ever ocurred to anyone that Mussolini or Hitler might be rightists until Stalin decreed it to be so, for his own tactical reasons. Of course, Stalin decreed that Trotsky was a rightist as well and nobody takes that at face value. But there is no point in this. Like your boyfiend John Stewart, you haven't read the book.

And again, the link you give is to a 6 minute interview that is edited down from 18. Obviously, things didn't go the way Stewie originally expected. I think it's pretty cheap to have a debate with someone, and then cut out all the parts where the other guy lands punches. It would be like me, editing all of your posts in this thread to remove any good points you made (obviously a hypothetical). If he were just interested in laughs, I don't think he would feel the need to do things like that. If Goldberg's book were as silly as he would have us believe, he wouldn't feel the need to do things like that.

I wasn't thinking of any particular song/band but if I were I would go with Luther Vandross' "Your Secret Love."

I haven't read Liberal Fascism but I know enough about it having watched Goldberg pimp his book on many occasions. From what I have seen of his act the problem I have is that he attempts to link liberalism and fascism exclusively while asserting conservatism is mutually exclusive to fascism using mostly anecdotal devices. If someone wanted to write a book(s) today called Conservatism Fascism or Conservatism Racism I assure you they would have enough material to write such a book(s). It would be silly book, a shameful book but your life partner seems to have high tolerance for shame.

The real problem with his book is that its objective is "tie liberalism to fascism." Not exactly a difficult thing to do...let me try...if you're a hunter and you have a dagger, you have something in common with Hitler's youth, they had knives.

I might be bias but even edited he sounds like a dumb-f*ck. I mean, the dude is riling against slander while committing it and doesn't like seeing words thrown around yet he's very comfortable doing it. Hopefully we will see the full 18 minutes someday and the conservative world would stop the conspiratorial madness.

first, i don't think it was a cramer takedown. he was present, but the issue was CNBC and the "experts" being completely blind to reality and not doing proper research with the tools they had as the "premiere financial network".

the reality is they're just an entertainment channel though, so they care about ad dollars and viewership above journalistic standards, which is sad, but pretty common today.

also, the timing was because ricky made some stupid comments alluding that this whole mess is poor people's fault alone as if the greedy mortgage banking industry or lobbyists/politicians had no part in it - so stewart took that to task... then cramer butted in, because he didn't feel that all the comments made were fair, so stewart did a redux.

that explains the timing... no conspiracies needed.

as far as the daily show not always being fair... he only said his show wasn't fair like 14 times during the interview - he has a writing staff of 18 (i think) and editorial control. the unedited interview (over 22min) is online on the daily show's site though, and really cramer and stewart don't have any ill will towards each other; other people just made this out to be a bigger deal than it was - his real beef was with experts' lack of foresight or follow-through, not cramer.

__________________ Who says shameless self promotion is stupid? oh yeah, that was me... Click For Tunes!

Let me get this straight Chip. A liberal leaning comedian with a funny popular show is actually, insiduously, a cultural tough guy enforcer for a larger left wing conspiracy to silent dissent? Hehe...

OK, as nutty as this sounds to someone like me, let's pretend it's true for the sake of argument. The show still needs to be funny to work - and it is. Really funny. So what is the crux of your critique? That his timing is questionable? So what if it is? The show is still funny and the essence of his argument, that CNBC failed in it's stated mission, is still correct.

So what really are you saying? That he edits his own show to make himself look better? Woah, shocker. That he doesn't think he should be held to the same objectivist standards as, like, real journalists? Do you? Really? He's not a comedian?

I'm not sure you really have a point here.

And if it's true that he is crushing Obama dissenters then why didn't he take down Krugman - who has been pretty consistently critical of Obama for over two years - when he was on the show recently? Is it because Krugman's a card carrying liberal? Well guess who else is... Cramer!